THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 75737\/13)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Just satisfaction)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 January 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n16\/04\/2018<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Andrey Medvedev v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Helena J\u00e4derblom, President, Having deliberated in private on 19 December 2017,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no.\u00a075737\/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr Andrey Yuryevich Medvedev (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 22 November 2013.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment delivered on 13\u00a0September 2016 (\u201cthe principal judgment\u201d), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Conventionand of Article\u00a08 of the Convention (see Andrey Medvedevv. Russia, no. 75737\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a046-47 and 56-57, 13\u00a0September 2016) and made an award under Article\u00a041 of the Convention to the applicant as regards his claimsin respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction of 4,796,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage, which included the purchase price of the flat, the expert fee for the appraisal of the flat and the cost of the materials and supplies he had bought for the refurbishment of the flat.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention, as regards pecuniary damage, was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., \u00a7\u00a061 and point 4 of the operative provisions).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the Government each filed observations.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Following the delivery of the judgment by the Court in the applicant\u2019s case, the applicant lodged anapplication with the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow, asking it to review the judgment of 30\u00a0October 2012 as upheld on 12\u00a0March 2013 by the Moscow City Court whereby the District Court had revoked the applicant\u2019s title to the flat located at 12-5 UlitsaLavochkina, Moscow, ordered his eviction and returnedthe flat to the City of Moscow.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 10\u00a0April 2017 the District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s application. The applicant appealed. The parties have not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant reiterated his claims in respect of pecuniary damage. He submitted that the judgment of 22 January 2014 delivered by the SergiyevPosad Town Court of the Moscow Region in his favour awarding damages against S. had not been enforced and the pending enforcement proceedings were a mere formality. The bailiffs had failed to locate S. or his assets. It would be highly unlikely that there would be any change in that situation.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the enforcement proceedings were still pending and should the Court decide to make an award in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant, the latter would receive the claimed amount twice: (1) as just satisfaction awarded by the Court and (2) as a judgment debt paid by S. They considered that, given that a new set of proceedings was pending before the national courts, the Court should \u201coblige the Government to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2014 [in the applicant\u2019s favour]\u201d instead of providing the applicant with a flat or its monetary equivalent.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s takes into account the Government\u2019s argument that, in the circumstances of the case, the most appropriate form of redress would be the enforcement of the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2014 in the applicant\u2019s favour against S. who was ordered to pay damages to the applicant for the loss of the flat. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour and any award he might be able to recover from S. may be taken into account for the purposes of its ruling on the issue of just satisfaction award under Article 41 of the Convention (compare, Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097\/10, \u00a7\u00a062, 6\u00a0December 2011).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The Court,however, notes that the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2014 referred to by the Government has remained unenforced to date. The Government have not provided any information as to the progress in the enforcement proceedings. The bailiffs have not so far located the debtor or any of his assets. In such circumstances, the Court considers that, as argued by the applicant, the Government have not demonstrated that the enforcement proceedings have any prospect of success and that the applicant might actually receive the judgment debt.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also observes that in an earlier case against Russia, in comparable circumstances, it has granted the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of pecuniary damage (see Pchelintseva and Others v. Russia, nos. 47724\/07 and 4 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0107-10, 17 November 2016, in which the Court made an award in respect of the pecuniary damage claimed by Ms Polevoda, the applicant whose judgment in her favour against the seller of the flat had not been enforced).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that, in the present case, there is a clear link between the violation found and the damage caused to the applicant.Having due regard to its findings in the instant case and to the fact that the amount awarded by the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2014 has not been paid, the Court grants the applicant\u2019s claims in part and awards him 89,660 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. It dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, EUR 89,660 (eighty-nine thousand six hundred and sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/em><\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Helena J\u00e4derblom
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nLuis L\u00f3pez Guerra,
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n